Literature DB >> 25917217

Looking at the hand modulates the brain responses to nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory stimuli but does not necessarily modulate their perception.

Diana M Torta1, Valéry Legrain1, André Mouraux1.   

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that looking at the hand can reduce the perception of pain and the magnitude of the ERPs elicited by nociceptive stimuli delivered onto the hand. In contrast, other studies have suggested that looking at the hand can increase tactile sensory discrimination performance, and enhance the magnitude of the ERPs elicited by tactile stimulation. These opposite effects could be related to differences in the crossmodal effects between vision, nociception, and touch. However, these differences could also be related to the use of different experimental designs. Importantly, most studies on the effects of vision on pain have relied on a mirror to create the illusion that the reflected hand is a direct view of the stimulated hand. Here, we compared the effects of direct versus mirror vision of the hand versus an object on the perception and ERPs elicited by non-nociceptive and nociceptive stimuli. We did not observe any significant effect of vision on the perceived intensity. However, vision of the hand did reduce the magnitude of the nociceptive N240 wave, and enhanced the magnitude of the non-nociceptive P200. Our results confirm that vision of the body differentially affects nociceptive and non-nociceptive processing, but question the robustness of visual analgesia.
© 2015 Society for Psychophysiological Research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Event-related potentials; Nociception; Perception; Touch; Vision

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25917217      PMCID: PMC5338730          DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12439

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychophysiology        ISSN: 0048-5772            Impact factor:   4.016


  26 in total

1.  Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation.

Authors:  T P Jung; S Makeig; C Humphries; T W Lee; M J McKeown; V Iragui; T J Sejnowski
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 2.  Brain generators of laser-evoked potentials: from dipoles to functional significance.

Authors:  L Garcia-Larrea; M Frot; M Valeriani
Journal:  Neurophysiol Clin       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.734

Review 3.  The pain matrix reloaded: a salience detection system for the body.

Authors:  Valéry Legrain; Gian Domenico Iannetti; Léon Plaghki; André Mouraux
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2010-10-30       Impact factor: 11.685

4.  Spatial modulation of tactile temporal-order judgments.

Authors:  David I Shore; Kellie Gray; Emily Spry; Charles Spence
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  Nociceptive laser-evoked brain potentials do not reflect nociceptive-specific neural activity.

Authors:  A Mouraux; G D Iannetti
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Somatosensory responses during selective spatial attention: The N120-to-N140 transition.

Authors:  L García-Larrea; A C Lukaszewicz; F Mauguière
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 4.016

7.  Mapping nociceptive stimuli in a peripersonal frame of reference: evidence from a temporal order judgment task.

Authors:  Annick L De Paepe; Geert Crombez; Charles Spence; Valéry Legrain
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2014-01-31       Impact factor: 3.139

8.  The influence of transient spatial attention on the processing of intracutaneous electrical stimuli examined with ERPs.

Authors:  Rob H J Van der Lubbe; Jan R Buitenweg; Maria Boschker; Bernard Gerdes; Marijtje L A Jongsma
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 3.708

9.  Visually induced analgesia: seeing the body reduces pain.

Authors:  Matthew R Longo; Viviana Betti; Salvatore M Aglioti; Patrick Haggard
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Body, space, and pain.

Authors:  Jörg Trojan; Martin Diers; Camila Valenzuela-Moguillansky; Diana M E Torta
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  7 in total

1.  Understanding the mechanisms through which spatial attention acts on nociception.

Authors:  Diana M E Torta
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Cortical interaction of bilateral inputs is similar for noxious and innocuous stimuli but leads to different perceptual effects.

Authors:  Stéphane Northon; Zoha Deldar; Mathieu Piché
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Shaping visual space perception through bodily sensations: Testing the impact of nociceptive stimuli on visual perception in peripersonal space with temporal order judgments.

Authors:  Lieve Filbrich; Andrea Alamia; Séverine Blandiaux; Soline Burns; Valéry Legrain
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Commentary: Mechanical Pain Thresholds and the Rubber Hand Illusion.

Authors:  Matteo Martini
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-10-18

5.  The effect of heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation on Aδ-, C- and Aβ-fibre brain responses in humans.

Authors:  Diana M Torta; Maxim V Churyukanov; Leon Plaghki; André Mouraux
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 3.386

6.  Biased visuospatial perception in complex regional pain syndrome.

Authors:  Lieve Filbrich; Andrea Alamia; Charlotte Verfaille; Anne Berquin; Olivier Barbier; Xavier Libouton; Virginie Fraselle; Dominique Mouraux; Valéry Legrain
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-29       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Mechanical Pain Thresholds and the Rubber Hand Illusion.

Authors:  Anna Bauer; Julia Hagenburger; Tina Plank; Volker Busch; Mark W Greenlee
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-05-15
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.